from the but-people-actually-hate-us,-they-exclaimed-with-their-guns-at-low-ready dept

If you ever need a bad law abused, just look for a police officer. The police like to steer clear of knowledge whenever possible because it helps them out when legal liability is on the line. Qualified immunity rewards cops who work hard to make sure they don't know the laws they're enforcing. But when it comes to laws officers can use to punish those who fail to show them the respect they think they're owed, officers know those inside and out.

Legislators have made things worse by passing "Blue Lives Matter" laws that grant extra legal protections to a class of Americans no one but cops think is a class routinely subject to oppression or bias. While a "Blue Lives Matter" law makes it easier to intimidate the general public, it's not a necessity. Officers have used bad laws -- like criminal defamation -- to hassle and silence critics.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Robbie Sanderson, a 52-year-old Black man from North Carolina, was arrested for retail theft by in Crafton, a small town near Pittsburgh.

During the arrest, Sanderson called police “Nazis,” “skinheads” and “Gestapo,” according to an affidavit of probable cause filed by the Crafton Borough police.

For that, he was charged with a hate crime.

Someone needs to explain to these cops they're not an ethnic or religious group. They're just cops. It's not a race or a religion, no matter how much law enforcement tries to set itself apart from the people it's supposed to be serving. Being called a "Nazi" is not "ethnic intimidation." Neither are the following examples provided by The Appeal, even if the language used actually seems to fit better with the legislative intent.

In January that year, Sannetta Amoroso, a 43-year-old Black woman from Pittsburgh, was charged with multiple counts of first-degree felony ethnic intimidation by McKees Rocks police Officer Brandy Harcha. According to police, Amoroso became angry while trying to report a crime and said “I’m going to kill all you white bitches” and “death to all you white bitches.”

Then in June, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Robert Wareham charged Steven Ray Oller, 47, of Chambersburg, with misdemeanor ethnic intimidation for threatening officers and using a racial slur directed at a Latinx trooper during an arrest for suspected DUI.

And in August, Trooper James Welsh of the state police charged Seneca Anthony Payne, a 39-year-old Bucks County man, with misdemeanor ethnic intimidation. Payne allegedly called an officer a “Gandhi motherfucker” during a welfare check at Payne’s home.

For what it's worth, state prosecutors seem more lawsuit-averse than these officers. The "ethnic intimidation" charges were dropped in all four cases. But here's the thing: the same departments charging these people with "ethnic intimidation" are too cowardly to include their misuse of a law in the official paperwork. As The Appeal reports, all of these departments claimed no hate crimes occurred in their jurisdictions despite booking these arrestees for hate crimes.

If a law written in a way that can be construed to cover actions law enforcement normally wouldn't consider crimes, it will be used to generate additional charges for arrestees. Cops know the laws far better than they claim in court. They like the grey area that allows suspicionless stops and pat downs, but absolute love the minutia that can turn normal reactions to police presence into an arrestable crime.

from the watch-your-mouths,-plebes dept

The Blue Lives Matter movement has traveled overseas. Here in the US, we've seen various attempts to criminalize sassing cops, although none of those appear to be working quite as well as those already protected by a raft of extra rights would like. Meanwhile, we had Spain lining itself up for police statesmanship by making it a criminal offense to disrespect police officers.

Hong Kong’s police commissioner said he would support a law to make insulting officers on duty a crime on Tuesday, in what appeared to be a move to placate the city’s police union.

Stephen Lo Wai-chung said an increasing number of disputes in the city was a reason a law was needed – an apparent reversal from his stance a year ago.

“Over the past few years, our officers have been carrying out duties in a society that full of disputes. They caught in the middle in many circumstances. They were insulted in certain extents at work with their jobs sometimes disrupted,” Lo told reporters as he announced last year’s crime statistics, adding that the force had overcome “several big challenges” in recent years.

Disrupting officers is already a criminal offense. It's the sort of thing that's illegal everywhere. But disruption of official duties needs to be far more than derogatory remarks. If insults hurled at officers are preventing them from doing their jobs, the police chief doesn't need new legislation. He needs new officers.

This change in stance can be traced back to Hong Kong's largest police union. The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents two-thirds of Hong Kong's police force, thinks officers need to be better protected from certain arrangements of letters.

from the still-plenty-more-'stupid'-in-the-Congressional-storerooms dept

Not wanting to be outdone by idiots in Congress, two idiot senators from the great state of Texas* are pushing their own "Blue Lives Matter" legislation. Senators Cruz and Cornyn have (re)introduced the Backed and Blown "Back the Blue Act," which adds mandatory minimums to any act of violence against most government officials. Oh, and for extra fun, automatic death penalty considerations for anyone charged under this act.

*Federal law requires the descriptor "great state of" to be appended to any state name, but especially Texas.

I'll get out of the way and allow Senator Cornyn to toot his own horn:

“Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve families across Texas. Violent criminals who deliberately target those who protect and serve our communities should face swift and tough penalties and the Back the Blue Act sends that clear message. Every day, and particularly during National Police Week, we must give the men and women in blue our unparalleled support,” Sen. Cornyn said.

You hear that, you bunch of ungrateful Americans? No matter how many citizens are gunned down for holding game controllers or toddlers torched by carelessly-tossed flashbang grenades, these fine men and women are to be given "unparalleled support." They apparently "deserve" it -- a term that must be wholly divorced from the process of earning it.

Several legislators have joined the two senators in stumping for underprotected government employees. Rep. Ted Poe (also of Texas) has plenty to say about the bill at his personal blog. He's all for it, naturally, but more importantly, he summarizes the harsh new penalties awaiting anyone who threatens, injures, kills, or conspires to do any of the above to a law enforcement officer.

Creates a new federal crime for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to the death penalty and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years if death results; the offender would otherwise face a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Creates a new federal crime for assaulting a federally funded law enforcement officer with escalating penalties, including mandatory minimums, based on the extent of any injury and the use of a dangerous weapon. However, no prosecution can be commenced absent certification by the Attorney General that prosecution is appropriate.

Creates a new federal crime for interstate flight from justice to avoid prosecution for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for this offense.

Take a good look at the middle stipulation. This means pretty much every law enforcement officer in the nation will be covered by this law, instantly subjecting people who do nothing more than assault an officer (aka, resisting arrest, contempt of cop, etc.) to federal punishments. Almost every law enforcement agency in the nation receives some sort of federal funding. This bill would yank prosecutions out of locals' hands and, presumably, separate defendants from less-harsh local laws.

The bill also allows law enforcement officers (including those whose agencies are the recipients of federal funding) to carry weapons into places citizens can't. Nothing like adding an extra right to a long list of extra punishments.

This chaser would put two "Blue Lives Matter" bills in play, giving Congress multiple ways to make policing worse. Considering the Go Team Blue attitude on display at the White House, these bills have a home team advantage and a president dying to sign a few more citizens' rights and liberties away on behalf of law enforcement.

from the those-poor-underprivileged-authority-figures dept

Because good ideas are rare but bad ideas eternal, the New York State Senate has just given its blessing to a stupid bill aimed at protecting people armed with guns, power, the weight of the law, and numerous immunity options. The "justification" for New York's addition of cops and first responders to the state's hate crime law is this:

There has been an increase in mortality rates of law enforcement officers, firefighters, corrections officers and emergency medical services personnel, within the past decade. In a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in 2014, statistics showed that approximately "126 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers died in the line of duty" which exhibited an increase in comparison to 2012 and 2013. The increase in the death toll has been in part, due to offenses intentionally aimed to harm first responders.

This is followed by a bunch of anecdotes about officers and first responders being on the receiving end of supposedly "targeted" violence. It adds nothing to the "justification" but a few presentation-worthy stories to sway emotions of fellow legislators. It doesn't make the preceding statement any more correct. It's actually misleading and wrong in equal parts.

First off, an increase in "mortality rates" is not the same thing as an increase in violence directed at law enforcement officers. The stats legislators are attempting to point to include all deaths in the line of duty, whether they were at the hands of civilians or not. So, this stat is already sort of misleading, albeit only because of the way this bill's sponsors have phrased it.

Second, the stats the justification quotes are wrong. There were 136 deaths in 2014, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. That's more than what's stated here. Worrying? Not even close. It's 20 more than 2013, but one less than 2012's total. In other words, the stats show no sort of increase that might justify giving police officers more protection. If these legislators weren't trying to cherry pick, they might have included 2011's total of 178, which is fifty more deaths than the supposedly-shocking number quoted in the bill's justification.

Fred Akshar [R] - Longtime law enforcement officer, having served as undersheriff for Broome County before turning to politics.

Patrick M. Gallivan [R] - former Erie County Sheriff (1998-2005), preceded by 15 years with the New York State Police, and followed by a stint on the state parole board. One of several state legislators found to have faked leadership positions in the Senate to get a little unearned extra pay added onto their paychecks.

Tony Avella [D] - Last seen at Techdirt killing off his horrendous "Right to Be Forgotten" bill… but not in an honorable way. Rather than remove it from consideration, he simply revoked his sponsorship, leaving the orphaned bill to wander the Senate halls unattended.

Martin J. Golden [R] - A retired NYPD officer who has been instrumental in adding even more New Yorkers to the state's sex offender registry, as well as expanding the state's DNA databank to include people convicted of nothing more than a misdemeanor.

John J. Bonacic [R] - Former assistant district attorney and one of those guys who thinks something must be done about "anti-law enforcement rhetoric." Apparently, this bill is part of the solution -- a bill that could conceivably be twisted to turn "resisting arrest" into a felony-level hate crime. (Because what is "resisting arrest" if not "targeting" of law enforcement for abuse/violence/etc.?)

Here's the pertinent wording of the bill, which adds cops, firefighters, and EMTs to a long list of groups who have historically been victims of discrimination.

section 1, states that a person has committed a hate crime, when he or she commits a specified offense and either intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed to, or in part because of a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation of a person, or because of actual or perceived employment as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel.

Guess who doesn't fit into that list: the shorter list of occupations that have long been revered, respected, and given considerable amount of leeway to perform their duties. Unlike those who have been singled out for abuse because of their age, disability, ancestry, race, color, national origin, or sexual orientation, the new protected class is entirely composed of voluntary "traits."

Adding to the ridiculousness is the bill's name -- a self-righteous, heart-tugging melange of authority-worshipping words: Community Heroes Protection Act.

Very few bills of this sort have become law. Many have attempted to give more protection to well-protected powerful classes, but very few have garnered enough support to make it past the introduction stage. This one has moved forward, which is a problem because bills like this that have passed have immediately been abused by law enforcement.

from the more-privilege-for-the-over-privileged! dept

There's no shortage of existing laws protecting law enforcement officers. So, of course, there's no shortage of new legislation being introduced to further protect a well-protected subset of government employees. Using a nonexistent "War on Cops" as impetus, legislators all over the nation are submitting bills designed to make harming a cop more of a crime than harming anyone else.

This isn't just happening at the state level. Last year, Colorado representative Ken Buck introduced a federal "Blue Lives Matter" law, which would have turned attacks on cops into "hate crimes." The bill is a ridiculous extension of protection to officers who aren't in any more danger than they were a decade ago, histrionic statements by various federal officials notwithstanding.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Thursday, the Thin Blue Line Act, by a 19-12 vote that would make the killing of a state or local law enforcement officer during the commission of a federal crime an aggravating factor for juries to consider when weighing a death penalty sentence.

All well and good, I suppose, although the bill is pretty much a carbon copy of Florida rep David Jolly's 2015 proposal, right down to the bill's name. Like Rep. Buck's bill, Jolly's made it as far as a committee referral before stalling out. Buchanan's bill, however, now has a greatly increased chance of being pushed towards the President's desk.

But to what end, asks Ciaramella? The law apparently does nothing more than signal supporters' cop-supporting virtue.

The legislation would be largely symbolic. Federal death penalty cases are exceedingly rare, and executions at the federal level are even rarer. The last federal execution took place in 2001, when Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing. Most homicide cases are prosecuted by states.

Congressman Bob Goodlatte seems to feel the bill will be most useful when deployed in terrorism cases, but otherwise admits practical applications will be few and far between. The bill has support from police unions but, more importantly, it certainly has the support of the DOJ and the President. This bill caters to Trump's "law and order" push and does a fair amount of sucking up to Attorney General Sessions himself.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced similar legislation in 2015, when he was a U.S. senator, saying "the alarming spike in violence directed against the men and women entrusted with ensuring the safety and order of our society must be stopped..."

The bill's being tossed into a pretty receptive Congress. It won't really need the support of powerful police unions, though -- not when the head of the DOJ has previously expressed his legislative desire to give cops even more protection.

Louisiana -- one of the few states where legislators have agreed to extend greater protections to an incredibly-protected group -- has already seen its newly-minted "Blue Lives Matter" law abused by law enforcement. It's been abused so badly that even law enforcement's best friend -- local prosecutors -- has refused to pursue charges under the statute.

The good news is most of these have gone nowhere. The data compiled by Craven shows a majority of these have died shortly after introduction -- most likely due to them being both (a) bad laws and (b) redundant. All 50 states already have some sort of sentencing enhancement on the books for perpetrators of violent acts against law enforcement officers. Trying to twist legislation meant to protect underprivileged groups to include some of the most privileged members of our society hasn't found much support beyond police unions and others similarly self-interested.

For whatever reason, Mississippi's legislature is the nation's leader in failure and redundancy, as far as "Blue Lives" legislation goes.

Any bills that have managed to pass make things worse for anyone who has the misfortune of interacting with police. Existing laws already engage in book-throwing when it comes to violence against police officers. "Blue Lives" laws just add more severity, for no tangible reason.

“In the vast majority of states, you will get life or considerably less in prison for murder; but if you murder a police officer, you are almost certain to get death,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “So the truth is that including police in hate crime laws is merely a political statement ― and an unnecessary one at that.”

In most cases, "Blue Lives" laws add sentencing enhancements to normal violations. Crimes like resisting arrest (and assaulting an officer, which tends to be handcuffed to resisting charges) are treated as acts of "hate," rather than as the basic, bog standard criminal acts they are.

It's also important to point out -- as Craven does in her article -- that the "Blue Lives Matter" movement was borne of law enforcement misconduct and use of excessive force. As public confidence in law enforcement decreased, some people felt compelled to intercede on behalf of a pretty much legally-unassailable group.

The national focus on police violence has put officers and their more avid supporters on the defense. Supporters created the Blue Lives Matter campaign as a direct response to the Black Lives Matter movement and the growing protests against police violence.

The other aspect that makes these laws particularly ridiculous is the "hate crime" aspect of it. Hate crime laws deal with human traits that are mostly involuntary or unchangeable, like race or sexual preference. No one is born a cop and no one forces anyone to take the job. Hate crime laws themselves are generally redundant, but adding more layers of redundancy to shelter a certain subsection of Americans who are completely free to remove their "cop" status at any time is a solution in search of a problem. And the problem with problem-less solutions is that problems will be created out of thin air to fit them.

from the things-are-going-to-get-worse-before-they-don't-improve-at-all dept

Earlier this week in a meeting with several sheriffs, Trump voiced his support for asset forfeiture and made an off-hand comment about ruining the careers of legislators engaged in reform efforts. Great fun was had by all… mostly Trump and perhaps a sheriff or two.

One order does nothing more than what large bureaucracies do best: institute task forces. Trump's task force is charged with "crime reduction and public safety." The DOJ will head this up and ask for cooperation from local law enforcement agencies. The public safety priorities are definitely Trump's, though.

A focus on law and order and the safety and security of the American people requires a commitment to enforcing the law and developing policies that comprehensively address illegal immigration, drug trafficking, and violent crime.

Illegal immigration is apparently the most dangerous of the three listed, presumably because it's the only one that justifies the erection of a Mexico-funded wall and the existence of a previous, possibly-unconstitutional executive order banning visitors from certain Muslim countries.

The scary part is a few paragraphs deep:

identify deficiencies in existing laws that have made them less effective in reducing crime and propose new legislation that could be enacted to improve public safety and reduce crime

If there's anything this country has too much of, it's laws. The president wants more laws, or existing ones patched up, to better reduce criminal activity. Given the state of mind of many in law enforcement, any perceived "deficiencies" in existing laws are likely concessions made to Constitutionality. You know, the sort of things cops and prosecutors call "technicalities" -- like the Fourth through Sixth Amendments.

Arriving alongside the Task Force order is one directing law enforcement agencies to get a better grip on "transnational criminal organizations." In short, Trump wants to reboot the Drug War and do all the things that have failed for the past 40 years harder, faster, and with more of a focus on foreigners.

To kickstart this new War, Trump has declared public safety and national security to be the same thing.

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to:

(a) strengthen enforcement of Federal law in order to thwart transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including criminal gangs, cartels, racketeering organizations, and other groups engaged in illicit activities that present a threat to public safety and national security and that are related to, for example:

(i) the illegal smuggling and trafficking of humans, drugs or other substances, wildlife, and weapons;

(iii) the illegal concealment or transfer of proceeds derived from such illicit activities.

Just like that, RICO violations, drug dealing, IP "theft," and depositing money in a bank in a certain way are all now considered threats to national security. The lessons not learned in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks continue to pay dividends for those seeking increased government power.

And once again, Trump makes sure non-US citizens are singled out for their inherent criminal nature/national security threatening.

...pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.

US persons' data and communications already being shared by the NSA with at least 16 federal agencies will also be shared with foreign law enforcement.

work to increase intelligence and law enforcement information sharing with foreign partners battling transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, and to enhance international operational capabilities and cooperation

And Trump's promise to ease restrictions on asset forfeiture appears to get a nod here:

Because forfeiture has always been defended with claims that it's used to dismantle criminal cartels, even when it's just being used to take cars away from drunk drivers and tuition money from college students.

pursue appropriate legislation, consistent with the Constitution's regime of limited and enumerated Federal powers, that will define new Federal crimes, and increase penalties for existing Federal crimes, in order to prevent violence against Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

More specifically, the order says that the federal government will explore new definitions of criminal activity if it appears to be directed at law enforcement officers and implement harsher sentences for these crimes.

...make recommendations to the President for legislation to address the protection and safety of Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers, including, if warranted, legislation defining new crimes of violence and establishing new mandatory minimum sentences for existing crimes of violence against Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers, as well as for related crimes

The "for related crimes" shows this won't just be used to punish direct attacks on law enforcement officers. It could be expanded to turn any number of "contempt of cop" charges (obstruction, resisting arrest, failure to identify, etc.) into criminal acts punished by extra-long jail sentences and hefty fines.

Also in this order: a nod to the 1033 program, which -- until (briefly) curtailed by the Obama administration -- distributed used (and new) military gear to local PDs for little to no cost.

(f) thoroughly evaluate all grant funding programs currently administered by the Department to determine the extent to which its grant funding supports and protects Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers; and

(g) recommend to the President any changes to grant funding, based on the evaluation required by subsection (f) of this section, including recommendations for legislation, as appropriate, to adequately support and protect Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

If this goes ahead as planned, small town cops will once again be riding high in armored vehicles, toting grenade launchers, and picking up Stingray devices without having to break the budget.

It was clear during his campaign that Trump was going to offer unconditional backing to the law enforcement community. And here it is, in three executive orders. They're all predicated on something Trump keeps repeating but that simply isn't true: law enforcement officers are not in more danger than they've been in years. The opposite is true. While there was an increase in officer deaths last year, it followed several years of steep declines. [Image via Reason]

And our cities aren't the crime-filled nightmares Trump insists they are. The national crime rate is still at historic lows. There are a few outliers on the scale, but that's the case every year, no matter where the national average sits.

On the other hand, there has been zero appreciable decline in the number of citizens killed by police officers. While crime rates remain low, this brand of killing hasn't. Through February 9th, 137 people have been killed by law enforcement, which puts this at 1,250 for the year if this pace continues. Last year, officers killed somewhere between 1,092 and 1,153 people (depending on whose count you go with). So, while crime rates remain low and officer safety remains high, people are being killed by officers at a faster pace than last year.

But these orders have no place for facts. And they indicate a willingness to for this president to institute policies reflecting his own misconceptions, rather than the nation's reality.

According to arrest documents, Delatoba was drunk and banging on a window at the Royal Sonesta Hotel, 300 Bourbon St. around 5:15 a.m. Monday, when a witness who heard the banging told him to stop. Delatoba's warrant says he yelled at the witness, "calling him a n-----."

That witness, a security guard who works at a nearby building's mezzanine, along with a security supervisor for the Royal Sonesta, flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers who then escorted Delatoba to NOPD's 8th District station, the warrant states. Once at the station, the warrant states, Delatoba began to verbally "attack members of the New Orleans Police Dept." The warrant states Delatoba called one female officer a "dumb a-- c---" and another officer a "dumb a-- n-----."

In a shocking twist, an intoxicated man was rude and uncooperative while being arrested. (Have these cops never watched "COPS?") So of course the New Orleans police took it upon themselves to be legally offended by the sort of invective they hear from arrestees all the time. The state's hate crime law expansion allowed them to tack on additional charge after the arrest -- a felony with a potential five-year prison sentence.

Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman, a spokesman for Cannizzaro's office, said Monday (Oct. 24) the police officers Raul Delatoba cursed at were not victims of the crime that prompted his arrest initially. Rather, the "disparaging remarks" to officers were made during or after he was apprehended. The office officially refused the charges about two weeks ago.

After a bit of hindsight, the police department officially agrees with the DA's decision.

Additionally, NOPD spokesman Tyler Gamble said Sept. 8 that after reviewing the case, it was "clear that the responding officer incorrectly applied" the hate crime law.

But it's important to note that wasn't always the case. When the "incorrectly applied law" first came up, the NOPD shrugged and said it was up to the DA to figure out how much bullshit was contained in the bullshit charge.

This is exactly the sort of ridiculousness everyone but the supporters of the bill saw coming. Give law enforcement a law to abuse and they'll abuse it. The New Orleans police can now arrest people for calling them names -- not really the sort of thing the power of law enforcement should be used for. What they can't do is tack a charge on if they feel insulted in the process of arresting someone for unrelated offenses. At least not in New Orleans. The law is effective statewide, and there's no guarantee every government prosecutor will view it the way Cannizzaro's office did.

Hate crime laws are generally vaguely written and overbroad, but ones that append "blue lives matter" wording are even worse. They extend protection to historically privileged and powerful people and make it that much easier to slap "disrespectful" arrestees with felony charges. It's nothing more than a vehicle for abuse and does absolutely nothing to foster a healthy relationship between police officers and the communities they serve.

Colorado representative Ken Buck is very concerned about the health and well being of our nation's police officers. His concern for officer safety in a world that "hates cops" is such that that he's introduced legislation making attacks on police officers a federal hate crime.

Buck's "Blue Lives Matter Act," H.R. 4760, would make "an attack on a police officer a hate crime," according to the bill's text. The name of the legislation, filed Wednesday, alludes to the "Black Lives Matter" mantra taken up by activists who protest police violence against black people, particularly the killings of unarmed black people at the hands of police.

The bill not only makes an attack on a police officer (or an attack that appears to be motivated by the fact that the person represents law and order) a "hate crime," but it also makes it a federal crime. Buck apparently feels this legislation is going to win hearts and minds, as there's no avoiding it when you visit his website.

The proposal is also accompanied by a heartfelt "Dear Colleague" letter that talks about cops "holding together the fabric of our nation" and how they've been "intimidated" by recent acts of violence. No statistics are cited to back up his insistence that this a real problem that needs to be addressed with legislation… because there aren't any.

The National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund's stats show the number of officers killed in the line of duty has been decreasing over the last several years and appears to have hit a lower plateau of ~120/year for the past four years.

The number of officers killed in the line of duty to date this year stands at 29, which would put year-end totals roughly in the same neighborhood as the past half-decade. And yet, every death is greeted with claims that the law enforcement profession is deadlier than ever.

Law enforcement officers are better protected (by laws and policies, on top of actual physical protective gear) than members of the public but they're apparently not protected enough. Buck's legislation allows officers -- who have made a voluntary choice to pursue a more dangerous career -- to count themselves as an underprivileged class, most of whom have no choice whatsoever in their current status. Back to Chris Seaton:

Why add a job, something a person applied for and trained to do, to a list of concepts like "religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability?" If you're a logical, rational person (and we'll assume you are, since reading Fault Lines puts you in that bracket), you should be able to spot the flaws with Buck's rationale right away…

People can't choose their race, gender, disability or sexual orientation. Cops choose to be cops. If officers don't like the increased risk inherent to their profession, they can always quit. Most of the other groups routinely covered by hate crime legislation don't have that luxury.

The bill's broad wording would allow federal prosecutors to bring hate crime charges for even the simplest of assaults -- provided the action could conceivably be perceived as "anti-law enforcement." Here's Seaton's hypothetical:

The arbitrary nature of the Blue Lives Matter Act is clear when you notice it's a federal offense if someone is attacked because they're "perceived" to be a police officer. There's no need to prove cop status under the Blue Lives Matter Act. If an AUSA has evidence someone yelled "FUCK THE POLICE" at a Rage Against the Machine concert before slugging a security guard, they can make it a hate crime and force the defendant to plead down from there.

Police officers are already a protected class. They have their own Bills of Rights. They have good faith exceptions, immunity that shields them from many civil lawsuits, the power to stop and detain people for almost any pretense and the constant support of hundreds of legislators around the country. They don't need any more help. They're as far away from "underprivileged" as any group could be.